Hi Joe. First, congratulations on running a great event! You really are a natural at it... it's a shame you weren't able to play also. Hopefully next season you'll be able to work something out to do both.

One thing, though... was there ever a consideration to pay out to 32 places at this event, rather than 24? It seemed kind of silly to me to make the first round of the cash $400, since most players were only paying a $125 entry fee. If you had reduced the 17-24 places to $300, you could have paid the 25-32 places $100.

Of course, I'm partially asking for a selfish reason, since I came in 25th :-) But one of the problems with men's pool is that tournaments are very expensive for their participants, and paying out a larger percentage of the field would make the trip more worthwhile for a lot of players. As there were about 110 players, paying 32 would have meant paying almost 30% of the field, rather than just slightly over 20%.

Anyway, please don't take this as criticism. You ran a great event, and I'm just asking if this was a consideration.

Thanks,
Steve Lipsky

TomBrooklyn

04-22-2002, 01:03 PM

I agree with you Steve.

04-22-2002, 01:09 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Steve_Lipsky:</font><hr> Hi Joe. First, congratulations on running a great event! You really are a natural at it... it's a shame you weren't able to play also. Hopefully next season you'll be able to work something out to do both.

One thing, though... was there ever a consideration to pay out to 32 places at this event, rather than 24? It seemed kind of silly to me to make the first round of the cash $400, since most players were only paying a $125 entry fee. If you had reduced the 17-24 places to $300, you could have paid the 25-32 places $100.

Of course, I'm partially asking for a selfish reason, since I came in 25th :-) But one of the problems with men's pool is that tournaments are very expensive for their participants, and paying out a larger percentage of the field would make the trip more worthwhile for a lot of players. As there were about 110 players, paying 32 would have meant paying almost 30% of the field, rather than just slightly over 20%.

Anyway, please don't take this as criticism. You ran a great event, and I'm just asking if this was a consideration.

Thanks,
Steve Lipsky <hr></blockquote>

Congrats on a fine showing in Chelmsford, Steve.The Martel win is a fine mark for your resume and jumps you up a notch.BS

04-22-2002, 01:10 PM

Hi Steve, Thanks for the compliment. The prize fund was broken down by Mike, I didn't have any input. He uses a chart that already has it all broken down by percentages based on the number of entries. But I'm gonna side with you on this one and rather than reduce the $400 spots, I would have taken it off that $7,000 first prize, as 2nd place paid $3,800. Hope to see at least a 50 percent payout in the future. Joe

04-22-2002, 02:17 PM

Actually, I just noticed that the charts were wrong on AZBilliards. Martel actually lost the match before I "supposedly" played him, so I actually played the guy that beat him.

However, now I can say that I blanked a guy that beat Martel :-)

- Steve

cueball1950

04-22-2002, 04:22 PM

hey steve.... i agree.. joe did a great job.. nice to see you again. i also got to meet pool fan while in chelmsford. now if they can only find a way to do the calcutta from the start. i know 109 players is alot.. but boy, what a calcutta that would be$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$......mike